Mario Patino v. D. Dominguez

Patino · United States District Court for the Southern District of California · June 4, 2025 · No. 25-cv-00589-BAS-KSC

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of California dismissed Mario Patino’s pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b) for failure to state a claim. The court rejected claims involving an allegedly unreasonable prison search, confiscation of a religious necklace, due process, and violations of California law and regulations. The court granted Patino 45 days to file a First Amended Complaint.

Holdings

  1. The complaint failed to plausibly allege that the initial clothed search and subsequent unclothed search were unreasonable in the prison context; therefore, it failed to state a Fourth Amendment claim.
  2. The complaint failed to state a First Amendment free-exercise claim because it did not plausibly allege that Patino's need to possess the necklace was sincerely held and rooted in religious belief or that confiscation substantially burdened his religious exercise.
  3. The complaint failed to state a due-process claim because California provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy for the alleged unauthorized confiscation of personal property.
  4. Alleged violations of California criminal laws and Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations, without more, did not state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged that the clothed and unclothed searches were unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
  2. Whether confiscation of the St. Jude necklace plausibly alleged a substantial burden on sincerely held religious exercise under the First Amendment.
  3. Whether the alleged unauthorized confiscation of the necklace stated a Fourteenth Amendment due-process claim despite the availability of a California post-deprivation remedy.
  4. Whether alleged violations of California criminal statutes and prison regulations independently stated a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
  5. Whether the complaint should be dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend.

Disposition

dismissed

Cases Cited (25)

  • Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc)(followed)
  • Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2010)(followed)
  • Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012)(followed)
  • Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)(followed)
  • Tsao v. Desert Palace, Inc., 698 F.3d 1128, 1138 (9th Cir. 2012)(followed)
  • Thompson v. Souza, 111 F.3d 694, 699-700 (9th Cir. 1997)(followed)
  • Michenfelder v. Sumner, 860 F.2d 328, 332 (9th Cir. 1988)(followed)
  • Bull v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 595 F.3d 964, 974-75 (9th Cir. 2010)(followed)
  • Grummet v. Rushen, 779 F.2d 491, 495 (9th Cir. 1985)(followed)
  • Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 529, 533 (1984)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 25.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…